Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 28, 2014, 08:27:04 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: NEW Follow LiveATC updates on Twitter and Facebook


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  Ryan Air 227 at EIDW "screwed everything"
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Ryan Air 227 at EIDW "screwed everything"  (Read 7316 times)
Maxx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« on: February 26, 2013, 01:23:59 PM »

15 Feb 2013 at approx 2140Z (2140 local)

Ryan Air from London (FR227) lands at Dublin (EIDW) and make a 180 degree turn on the runway. Several airplanes have to go around. Female F/O is pilot flying, captain is pilot monotoring.
At the end of the recording, the controller summs it up nicely...

I really didnt understand the reason the captain gave the tower. Anyone?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283617/Ryanair-just-screwed-What-Dublin-Airport-flight-controller-told-airline-plane-forced-jets-abort-landing.html
Logged

I fly B737-900ER
flyflyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 107



« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2013, 02:55:11 PM »

Airport diagram:
http://www.iaa.ie/safe_reg/iaip/Published%20Files/AIP%20Files/AD/Chart%20Files/EIDW/EI_AD_2_EIDW_24-1_en.pdf

So they rolled to just before B7, turned back intending to exit via E7 but then had to leave via E5...

Sounded like they wanted to check for rubber debris after braking hard. Bad idea. embarassed
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 02:58:02 PM by flyflyfly » Logged
Maxx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2013, 09:47:03 PM »

I see several problems. They said they had a "long landing" and had to break hard. So long that even with very hard breaking, they couldnt make the semi high-speed exit E7 (at the 1000 foot marker).
This could not have been a stable approach (they must have been too high and/or too fast, 2 of the 10 items for a non-stabalized approach). FCTM (and therefore surely the company procedures) dictates a go-around. The only reason to go that far would be malfunction, ie low flap setting (they would have advised) or speed breaks not deploying.
They didnt go-around. For me, this is a serious problem with this crew. They know when they should go around, but they feel the pressure to put the plane on the ground and hope for the best... Jumping to conclutions with little knowledge of the situation is never good, but I cant see no other reason.

Another problem is lack of communication. Normally the crew would advise the tower that they are rolling to the end. Its not mandatory however, so alright... But, doing a 180 on the runway and the tower is the one to find out after the manouver is completed, that is serious.  shocked
This is why in Europe, tower gives landing clearance to the next plane when runway is vacated. We hear from the clip a plane advising "short final" (promting for a landing clearance), but tower say "continue", waiting for the clearance and also advising that Ryan Air is rolling to the end. In USA, sometimes they give landing clearance to number two and three in sequence. Unless a plane land without landing clearance (yes, crew can forget that they havent received one yet), the situation was not dangerous in this case, because of this good practice. No one had a landing clearence after Ryan Air 227.

Two bad calls by the crew; Not going around and lack of communication.
Not going around, could that be a culture problem in Ryan Air? I've heard that before, but dont know if it is true. Other companies train their pilots to go around and a failure to do so in the sim, would be a bust.

ATC however. Outstanding!
They kept calm and polite (almost too polite, the crew would deserve a New York controller...), good practice with landing clearances, good advisements to crew in landing sequence, good call on runway inspection, good management of the situation.
Good routines and good observations, saving Ryan Airs... behind.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 10:08:56 PM by Maxx » Logged

I fly B737-900ER
777-200LR
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2013, 07:28:35 AM »

Not sure why you think this could not have been a stabilized approach.   They could have floated the touchdown long or simply gotten on the TR's late, neither of which constitute an "unstable approach" that would call for a go-around.

Or, in addition to the above, they could have had a tailwind component depending upon whether or not the weather was changing.   Weight could also have been a factor.  Was the runway wet?

Or, maybe one of their TR's was inoperative or their autobrakes failed to activate and by the time they realized it and went to manual braking, they were another 3,000 feet down the runway.

Tomato tomato.

Controllers really shouldn't be worrying about why a crew landed long.  It's really not their their purview to question unless they feel they did it intentionally.

Let's be honest, if you see a plane land long, do you really need to question the reason over the frequency like you're conducting some kind of forensic investigation with other planes in the pattern?   Who cares why they went long.  All the tower needs to know is they did.

As far as back-taxiing goes, what else did the tower expect the crew to do...just loiter on the active and cause even more planes to GA?

Logged
Maxx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2013, 10:16:00 AM »

Well, when you have to break hard and still cant make the semi high-speed exit about 1000 feet from the end, something is not right. (yes, it is a possibility something was wrong with the aircraft).

The tower asked why, in case there were something they should know about. And it was something they should know about, cause they had to inspect the runway before the next landing could be made. Good thing they asked.

As far as backtrack: Use the exit at the end (B7). They were only a few feets away from it, since they couldnt make the exit 1000 feet before it. And if they want to backtrack, for some reason, at least make a call about it. (like you would do for a RTO for the same reason)
Logged

I fly B737-900ER
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1583


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2013, 03:41:35 PM »

Interesting recording, thanks for posting!
Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
svoynick
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 111


« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2013, 05:32:10 PM »

Controllers really shouldn't be worrying about why a crew landed long.  It's really not their their purview to question unless they feel they did it intentionally.

Let's be honest, if you see a plane land long, do you really need to question the reason over the frequency like you're conducting some kind of forensic investigation with other planes in the pattern?   Who cares why they went long.  All the tower needs to know is they did.
I agree with you that tower shouldn't spend time on administration of enforcement, but that leads me to just the opposite conclusion as you've reached: I would propose they shouldn't waste time on whether it was "intentional" or not, but they absolutely should determine why it happened. 

Quote from: 777-200LR
Or, in addition to the above, they could have had a tailwind component depending upon whether or not the weather was changing.   Weight could also have been a factor.  Was the runway wet?
Note that two of the 3 reasons you cite here - a weather change or a wet runway possibly affecting steering and/or braking - would both be important information to pass along for the safety of subsequent landing aircraft.  So darn right, I want the tower asking "why?", for that very reason.

And if you're going to propose that, had it been a flight safety issue, the crew would have advised the tower, I think that's a non-starter:  after all, with landing traffic on final behind them, they didn't think it important to mention that they were doing a 180 taxi-back on the active runway...

Quote from: 777-200LR
As far as back-taxiing goes, what else did the tower expect the crew to do...just loiter on the active and cause even more planes to GA?
Continue rolling to the next opportunity to exit, in this case across the threshold of 10 and turn right onto B7.  When is this not the default/expected action after missing a given taxiway? 
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!